PSA: Just because you are a believer who got their feelings hurt, doesn't make someone intolerant

[Major Nikon]

Intolerance IS seeking to deny a class of people a basic human right. Criticism of belief IS NOT intolerance. Your freedom to promote your belief includes the freedom of others to criticize it.

[MineralMan]

1. Yes. Intolerance denies people something.

Criticism simply describes a different way of looking at things.

However, an inability to absorb criticism often leads to active intolerance. People have been executed in horrible ways for criticizing religious beliefs. People have also died for holding religious beliefs, usually at the hands of people who held different beliefs.

Intolerance causes harm. Criticism causes reflection about beliefs, or should, anyhow.

[grumpyduck]

2. Something that has been irritating me

since I was a kid is the idea that "I can do it but you can't." I've seen it at home, in school, at work, in social circles, in politics, and in other places. Not talking about differences in rank or seniority or anything similar -- just among peers.

Saw it just the other night on an NCIS rerun. A member of a drug cartel: it's okay for us to kill your people but you can't kill ours.

"I can stay out all day shopping without calling in, but if you do it I'm going to think you're having an affair."

"I can call for a re-count of votes, but if my opponent does it, I'm going to get all over his case."

"I have freedom of speech but you don't." "I can criticize you but you can't criticize me."

You get the idea.

[guillaumeb]

3. Stay with your true gif(t).

This might help you, or others:

intolerance
[in-tol-er-uh ns]
ExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for intolerance on Thesaurus.com
noun
lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.
unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group.
incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure:
intolerance to heat.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intolerance

[marylandblue]

5. I've seen more than one definition out there,

From Merriam Webster, we see these two, among others:

2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
b : the act of allowing something :

In regard to 2a, you seem very intolerant since you do not have any sympathy or indulgence for atheistic beliefs as expressed on this board. On the other, you have done nothing to prevent such beliefs from being expressed, so based on 2b, you are tolerant.

2b seems to be the more salient definition in terms of politics, philosophy and theology. I've come across many far right evangelical Christians who were not at all sympathetic to my liberal non-Christian beliefs. Downright hostile sometimes. But they didn't say I wasn't allowed to have such beliefs or had any desire to create a religious exception to the First Amendment, so based on 2b, they were tolerant, as all Americans should be.

[guillaumeb]

7. I have never criticized atheism.

It is simply not my belief.

[marylandblue]

8. You have no sympathy for the atheistic viewpoint, and atheists on this board can attest to that.

[guillaumeb]

9. I have no belief that atheism is correct.

And I will attest to that. But I do not criticize atheists simply for being atheists. I might criticize individual atheists for a variety of reasons, but I do not criticize the concept of atheism itself.

[marylandblue]

12. Then by 2a and your own definition you are intolerant of individual atheists

[guillaumeb]

13. No, I am critical.

[marylandblue]

14. So is Russell

If he is intolerant, so are you. If he is not, you are not. If wish to set yourself up as the arbiter as to what is acceptable criticism and what is not, be prepared for charges of hypocrisy and further intolerance.

[guillaumeb]

15. Russell frequently engaged in ad hominem.

That has nothing to do with dialogue. It is intended to silence disagreement.

[Major Nikon]

16. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296794

[marylandblue]

18. Russell spoke to a lot of people, so clearly he wanted dialogue

Who he chose to dialogue with, and how he did it, is really up to him. If you want dialogue, don't say things that you admit are intended to silence disagreement.

Ad hominem does not actually silence disagreement. It gives you at least 3 options. One is to ignore it and just continue with substance. Second is to defend your honor by showing how religious sentiment is not contemptible.

The third and least fruitful is to fight back with your own ad hominen. Which you have done by attacking Russell. Even if your counterattack is justified, it is boring. Russell wasn't perfect. Thanks, we already knew that.

[Major Nikon]

19. Intolerance is a feature of believers, not non-believers

Many mainstream religions, including the dominant one here in the US, have intolerance enshrined into their instruction manual and no more is this true than with religious intolerance as adherents are frequently told to shun or even murder non-adherents. As such believers not only feel morally justified in their intolerance, but see it as a duty required by their belief system.

The vast majority of atheists could care less if someone wants to believe in mythology and are apathetic about such things. What they do care about is how organized religion impacts their lives and those they care about.

[guillaumeb]

21. Intolerance is found wherever there are humans.

The Chinese atheists who put Muslims in reeducation camps. Their atheism does not inoculate them against intolerance.

[Major Nikon]

23. Interesting framing

Does this mean every time a theist does something bad we can blame their religion, or is this just a double standard that only applies to atheists?

[guillaumeb]

25. No, it means that we should recognize that intolerance is a human failing.

No matter the mindset, or the label, humans are intolerant.

[Major Nikon]

27. Nobody is arguing anyone is incapable of intolerance

Implying otherwise is the first step to strawman nonsense.

[guillaumeb]

29. What leads to intolerance?

Is it a natural corollary to tribalism?

[Major Nikon]

32. All sorts of things lead to intolerance

It’s not even always for nefarious reasons. Some people are prohibited from proselytizing in some places. While that’s an example that fits the definition, the reasons are understandable.

[guillaumeb]

33. Agreed.

And intolerance is also a part of the us vs them mentality that divides people.

[Major Nikon]

35. Sometimes that's the reason

It can also be the result of people who have been indoctrinated into believing they are actually doing you a favor by forcing their beliefs on you.

[guillaumeb]

43. Also true.

[Major Nikon]

6. Remember you're the one who still thinks deism is a form of theism

Even after you posted a definition that stated exactly the opposite. Suffice it to say, literacy and particularly in regards to religion, just isn't your strong suit.

If someone does something that specifically prevents someone else from free exercise of their religion or lack thereof, then they are intolerant.

Definition

The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs are incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance (i.e., ideological intolerance).

Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance

[Major Nikon]

17. Do you respect racism?

If not, you are intolerant. Congratulations!

[Cary]

28. What exactly do you mean by "tolerant?"

How "tolerant" must I be for a proposition based on no objective facts?

Asking for your clarification in a respecful, but perhaps intolerant way.

[guillaumeb]

30. Tolerate that we might differ on this issue. And we might agree on other issues.

And part of that tolerance is not calling people names because of the difference of opinion.

If you are a non-theist, I respect your ability to arrive at that conclusion.

[trotsky]

42. "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own"

So like when you continue to define atheism the way you want, instead of accepting the opinions of atheists themselves.

Got it.

[Cartoonist]

4. When theists say intolerance

What they really mean is religious privilege.

[guillaumeb]

10. All theists?

When atheistic governments in China and N Korea persecute theists, what are they demonstrating?

[Cartoonist]

11. Political privilege

[Major Nikon]

20. The exact same behavior they demonstrate toward atheists who are seen as a threat to power

Kinda funny how that works. Almost leads one to believe it's not really about religion at all.

[guillaumeb]

22. So being an atheist is not incompatible with being intolerant?

We agree.

[Major Nikon]

24. I suspect we would also agree the sun rises in the east

Anyone can be intolerant. That doesn’t mean everyone is intolerant, nor does it mean all forms of intolerance is the same or equal.

[guillaumeb]

26. Agreed.

[marylandblue]

44. If you agree with that, then it is possible that

religion could be responsible for certain particularly pernicious forms of evil, that might not be exhibited in non-religious contexts. Which is not to excuse any non-religious evil, but simple to point out that unique factors might be at play in each case.

[guillaumeb]

45. There are many causes of evil.

And most involve, to some degree, an aspect of tribalism.

Edited to add:

I replaced all with most.

[marylandblue]

46. Really? So when a man beats his wife, it's because of tribalism?

What about when someone chops down a rainforest to feed his family? Or a politician takes a bribe?

Don't you think you are painting a wee bit of a broad brush?

[guillaumeb]

47. I said many causes.

Not all causes.

[marylandblue]

48. You changed "all" to "most"

But at least you were honest enough to note your edit in that post.

But that just raises a different question. If there are many causes of evil, and not all are related to tribalism, then some might be related to religion. What do you think?

[guillaumeb]

49. I never disagreed with that. And my edited post notes the edit.

Any aspect of tribalism can be and is used by the 1% to divide.

[marylandblue]

50. Ok, we may be on to something.

What aspects of religion do you think may contribute to evil, aside from ones related to tribalism, if any?

[guillaumeb]

51. Any aspect of tribalism can contribute to an "us versus them"

mentality, and that can lead to violence.

Patriotism, language, ethnicity, and religious belief. among other factors.

[marylandblue]

52. Ok, but that's not the question I asked, so I'll just ask a different question.

Your post implies that religion is an aspect of tribalism. Is that what you believe? Is there are any part of religion or religious practices that is not an aspect of tribalism?

[guillaumeb]

53. I believe I did answer your question.

But to make it even stronger: religion, as an aspect of tribalism, can be and is used to divide people, sometimes with very negative consequences.

[marylandblue]

54. Do you think there is anything good about tribalism in general?

What about religion in particular?

If so, what are the good things about them?

[guillaumeb]

55. Tribalism is an aspect of socialization.

And humans are social animals. But good things can be used for bad agendas.

What unites us can also be used, and misused, to divide us.

[marylandblue]

56. Who decides what's a good or bad agenda?

When to unite and when to divide?

[guillaumeb]

57. Every social grouping.

My view, of course.

And what are your thoughts?

[marylandblue]

58. If everything is explained by tribalism

and every social grouping decides for itself what is good or bad, then you've explained nothing at all. For example, we went to war in Iraq because we are tribal and that's good because our social group said so. Now replace "war in Iraq" with any other activity and you get the same answer.

I find that very unsatisfying. I like a lot more detail than that so we can hopefully set our society on a better course. But that would require much more specific, and perhaps uncomfortable answers than, "we did it because we are tribal."

[guillaumeb]

60. Many things are explained by tribalism.

And there are things that are explained by people seeking power over others.

How do we reduce the incidence of humans seeking power over other humans?

[marylandblue]

61. We start by looking at all the important factors and how the interact

You usually start, and end, with tribalism. But now you added seeking power. Any other factors you'd like to add?

[guillaumeb]

62. Seeking power seems to be one of the foundations.

Most societies establish some type of social hierarchy.

[marylandblue]

63. Not most societies. All societies have a hierarchy.

But hierarchies vary greatly in degree and kind. Again you have to look at the details of each one.

[guillaumeb]

64. The conmmon element is a hierarchy.

And one obvious element is ranking members in that hierarchy.

Power in the hierarchy is another element. And with that power comes the ability to compel lower ranking members.

[marylandblue]

65. Well, you are explaining everything by nothing again

All societies work this way, so of course it's the common element. And all societies establish their own idea of good and evil. So we end up with all hierarchies are good.

[guillaumeb]

66. No, we end up with humans doing bad and good.

The rest of our conversation is about humans organizing themselves.

[Lordquinton]

41. Expertly executed whataboutism

You completely changed the topic and continued to run from it.

[Adsos Letter]

31. .

[Major Nikon]

34. Funny how that works

Especially when the privileged majority are the ones squealing the loudest about being persecuted.

You come to expect that kind of garbage from wingnut propaganda outlets. For some reason it seems worse when it happens here.

[Adsos Letter]

36. It irritates me to no end when some Christians in the US claim that they are being persecuted.

Simply because they are expected to follow the same Constitutional strictures as everyone else (thinking in broad terms about the Separation of Church and State). Or simple criticism.

And yes, it does seem worse when it happens here.

[Pope George Ringo II]

37. You know what's even better?

When they're not even directly involved in an event, but another group gets to enjoy the exact same freedom to be in the public eye, and they can't stand the idea that somebody else has the same rights they do.

[Adsos Letter]

38. Christian Dominionism.

The biggest threat this country faces at the moment, imho.

[Pope George Ringo II]

39. It's on the short list.

I've got some real financial questions, and some military ones, and some political ones...that's not encouraging when I think about it...but the cultural ones are always under all the rest, and the damage religion is doing really makes it harder to solve the other problems.

Assuming, of course, that we don't simply start World War III directly because Mike Pence's invisible friend wants us to.

[Adsos Letter]

40. I agree.

I think the primary thing that alarms me about Christian Dominionism is the thought of our legal institutions being in the hands of a group that would:

1. Be able to enforce their ideas about whether or not there is a god.

2. Be able to claim to know who that god's enemies are.

3. Be able to inflict punishment on those enemies and persecute those who disagree, all based upon a supposed divine imprimatur.

[Iggo]

59. Proof that atheists are intolerant: I only see ten replies.